semantic_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it requires a prior reindex, never downloads a model during query serving, and refuses to mix vectors from different model revisions. These are non-obvious operational traits that an agent must know to use the tool correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by critical operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential operational constraints, prerequisites, and what the search targets, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not needed. It is slightly incomplete only because `kinds` and `limit` are left unexplained and no sibling comparison is offered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that `query` is matched semantically and multilingually, but it does not explain the meaning of `kinds` or `limit`, nor how they constrain the search. This leaves the agent to guess at parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation ('Search active people and safe interaction summaries') and the method ('multilingual semantic similarity'), which clearly distinguishes it from the lexical/relationship-focused sibling tools like search_people. The scope is concrete and an agent can infer what this tool is for without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: only after an explicit `pctx reindex --semantic` and only for semantic/local search. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling alternatives such as search_people, nor does it state when not to use it. The prerequisite is helpful, but the selection guidance is incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.